5 Comments

Just really hard to imagine how any of these men who have taken Holy Orders, who have been given positions of power right up to the Chair of Peter, can abuse their position and be so wasteful, frivolous, or worse with money entrusted to the Church for the work Jesus Christ on this earth. Just is hard to fathom. Just so hard. . .

Expand full comment

I cannot decide whether I am more appalled or puzzled when I read articles like this. I am not an iconoclast, I want the Church to retain its treasures of sacred art and architecture for worship and evangelization. I understand the desirability of having an endowment to make sure they are preserved and presented to the public appropriately. What I cannot understand is the basis for creating what seem to be private equity, commercial banking, and real estate speculation concerns within the Vatican. My conscience refuses to put any money in the envelopes to fund the Pope’s intentions or organizations. Cannot investing the Vatican’s financial wealth be entrusted to regulated investment managers in different countries? The size of the funds, how they are invested, and what is spent on what purposes should be transparent. I would feel far more comfortable if Morgan Stanley, for example, managed 25% of the Vatican’s financial assets than a bunch of Italian capos inside the Vatican. And 25% each by three other comparable managers.

Expand full comment

"There’s nothing illegal about the pope’s decision, but the news has caused a stir among those following the details of the scandal and trial. "

Really?

Let us suppose that Tortzi was not authorised to do what he did. He has arranged the purchase of a property with money paid out of a charity of which the Pope is a trustee. He has done it in such a way that the charity does not have legal ownership of the property. He asks for 10 million euros to give the charity legal ownership. Effectively Tortzi would be guilty of fraudulent conversion - a crime. Presumably this is what he is now being charged with. (Different legal jurisdictions will have different laws but genrally in the Western world they have the same effect).

The Pope as a trustee of a charity is then supposed to have authorised the 10 million euros for purely pragmatic reasons perhaps regarding it as the easiest hassle free option. The problem is that it is not the Pope's money but the money of the charity and he is therefore not free to spend it as he likes. By paying the money he is effectively facilitating the crime. Does this not make him an accessory and thus guilty of a crime himself? It could be that he is guilty of theft of the charity's money; his motivation would be of importance in that case. Did he do so because Tortzi was a friend or somebody he just wanted to benefit - perhaps seeing his action as some kind of pastoral approach to a sinner? Another example of putting mercy before justice instead of the other way round.

Apart from the legal problem did Pope Francis not see a moral problem in giving Tortzi the money? Did he feel no moral duty to uphold the law by reporting Tortzi to the police?

By prosecuting Tortzi it is possible that a whole can of worms will be opened up. It seems to me that it is inevitable that the Pope's conduct will be called into question and right-thinking people will be dismayed at the very least. But then there seem to be few right-thinking people in the Vatican or in many other parts of the Church.

But just suppose Tortzi is able to prove that he was authorised to do what he did. Just think why is Becciu being prosecuted? Because he authorised it? And what was the purpose of it being authorised? Was it just to benefit Tortzi because they liked him or was it because there was some kickback or other devious transaction? In that case what did the Pope know and what was he told and did he ask any questions? The questions about the Pope's conduct will be even greater than if Tortzi was not authorised.

Expand full comment

Beware, “the love of money is the root of all evil.”

Expand full comment